Re: [apps-discuss] [Errata Rejected] RFC6365 (4005)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 11 June 2014 18:43 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0360D1A026E; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.251
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iJ0Q8LjsgHdF; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9A601A0259; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1WunSh-0009ls-LC; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 14:41:27 -0400
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 14:43:12 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, paul.hoffman@vpnc.org
Message-ID: <3E3432F3ADA6DBD51AF77A93@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140611091932.253F818000E@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20140611091932.253F818000E@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.115
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/q7E07ML1igISN0tON4gq5HHusdM
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:15:21 -0700
Cc: barryleiba@computer.org, iesg@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Errata Rejected] RFC6365 (4005)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:43:28 -0000
Sigh. Folks, I apologize, but I'm very busy, not feeling well, have zero support for any IETF-related or Internet-protocol-development-related work (nothing new -- that has been the case for more than a decade and is partially my choice to avoid conflicts of loyalties), and have to prioritize work. When I get under pressure to get things done, I tend to write a little too quickly and leave things out. On the other hand, when I put in all the details, people attack me for that. In the last week (and, less specifically, the last few weeks), I've also felt, perhaps incorrectly, that issues that affected the PRECIS and URNBIS WGs, and even some policy issues on which I've got some special experience or perspective, should take precedence over a detailed response to the comments about this proposed erratum. Before someone asks, submitting it was consistent with those priorities, promoted by the introduction of "ASCII7" (a term not covered in 6365) in draft-ietf-precis-framework. Given that the hasty and sloppy way in which I wrote the erratum note caused some justifiably-negative comments and a bit of confusion, I didn't want to respond to the various notes, especially Ned's, until I had time to do so adequately. A partially-written response has been on my machine, being worked on at intervals to make it tight and clear, since a few hours after Ned's note was posted. I assume it is now OBE and that, if I want to reopen this, it should be in a new draft erratum that is written as precisely and in as much detail as I can manage. In the interim and partially in my defense, I am perfectly aware of what a "charset" is and equally aware of the use of "US-ASCII" in the charset context. I am also aware of the difference between a coded character set, encodings, and a repertoire, including, btw, the fact that none of our normal, Internet, use of the ASCII repertoire in an eight bit form/encoding (one of at least two that were in use at one time and distinct from two seven bit encodings I'm aware of and at least one nine-bit one) isn't specified anywhere in the ASCII standard. That is one of the two reasons I've encouraged the use of normative references in RFCs to RFC 20 rather than X3.4 (or especially the more recent ANSI/INCITS 4). I have even argued that the choice of "US-ASCII" as a charset identifier was a good idea, precisely because it identified one particular combination of a CCS and encoding. That was precisely the "IETF artifact" I was referring to, obviously without going into enough detail. And, if the term "artifact" wasn't chosen carefully enough from the range of alternatives, I'm sorry, but note that the proposed erratum was intended (I thought clearly) more to flag the issue for readers and as a memory aid for any future update or revision, not as definitive text. I had thought that 6365 itself clearly explained the CCS-Encoding-Repertoire-Charset distinctions and that I was writing in that context. Given the discussion, probably I was wrong and someone should take another look at that. I do note that 6365 does use both "ASCII" and "US-ASCII". I thought that had been done consistent with references to the ASCII standard, repertoire, and CCS and the US-ASCII charset. On rereading somewhat over a week ago, I was less convinced that we were consistent enough about that. That was another thing that prompted the erratum posting. It also helped cause the delay in responding to last week's comments because I wanted to go back through 6365, check every use of either term, and identify which ones were candidates for correction or clarification before creating more misunderstanding. So much for that idea. regretfully, john --On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 02:19 -0700 RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > The following errata report has been rejected for RFC6365, > "Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6365&eid=4005 > > -------------------------------------- > Status: Rejected > Type: Editorial > > Reported by: John Klensin <john=ietf@jck.com> > Date Reported: 2014-06-04 > Rejected by: Barry Leiba (IESG) > > Section: GLOBAL > > Original Text > ------------- > US-ASCII > > Corrected Text > -------------- > ASCII > > Notes > ----- > The term "US-ASCII" is an IETF artifact, left over from some > misunderstandings about what "ASCII" referred to (and the > complete absence of CSCII or CASCII, MSCII or MXSCII, BRSCII, > ARSCII, and other "American" coded character sets). It is a > source of confusion for people who come to IETF specifications > with a background in coded character sets and terminology from > other areas or standards bodies and has been warned against > multiple times. It should not have appeared in this document > except possibly with a warning against its use (and the use of > other bogus terms like "ASCII7"). The second author, who is > normally sensitive to the issue, has no idea how this got past > him, even in text picked up from other documents, but supposes > this is what errata are for. > > In any event, there is no such thing as "US-ASCII": the term > is an erroneous and misleading synonym/ substitute for > "ASCII". The reference for the latter is correct, but the > citation anchor should probably be corrected as well. > --VERIFIER NOTES-- > (1) It's clear that this is NOT errata: the use of "US-ASCII" > in the document was quite intentional at the time. > > (2) If (and it's not clear that there's consensus on this) we > think that "US-ASCII" is not the right term, the right answer > is to revise the document. Should that be done, we'd open up > quite a debate about what terminology is right, and why. > Simply replacing all occurrences of "US-ASCII" with "ASCII" is > unlikely to be the answer. Whatever should happen would be > more complicated than that. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC6365 (draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-06) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Terminology Used in Internationalization > in the IETF Publication Date : September 2011 > Author(s) : P. Hoffman, J. Klensin > Category : BEST CURRENT PRACTICE > Source : Applications Area Working Group > Area : Applications > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG >
- [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC636… RFC Errata System
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Barry Leiba
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Ned Freed
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… S Moonesamy
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Hector Santos
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… S Moonesamy
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… John Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… John Levine
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Barry Leiba
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Nico Williams
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Ned Freed
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Ned Freed
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RF… Martin J. Dürst
- [apps-discuss] [Errata Rejected] RFC6365 (4005) RFC Errata System
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Errata Rejected] RFC6365 (400… John C Klensin